Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Fri, 03 July 2015 07:45 UTC

Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1D01A1B0E; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 00:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E18JL9xL9VYn; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 00:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lb2-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net (lb2-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net [194.109.24.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6B141A1AE6; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 00:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([194.109.20.205]) by smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net with ESMTP id njkn1q00A4RV18J01jknwM; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:44:53 +0200
Received: from [2001:983:a264:1:ddf7:71d4:4944:4487] by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:44:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:44:47 +0200
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <d065c9d28a735b2687c94698c655cf28@xs4all.nl>
References: <20150408233408.4123.3118.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <fb86c816367f2cef72685d1cbaf23e2a@xs4all.nl> <14934.1429043465@sandelman.ca> <0b35569a80c62337655b16c7010a84da@xs4all.nl> <12442.1429113740@sandelman.ca> <32c66dc3bb9f396188b90a178ff767d9@xs4all.nl> <15944.1429209784@sandelman.ca> <4b7fa589766fa21d12403ee8cc49262e@xs4all.nl> <55586FF8.5060908@cs.tcd.ie> <d065c9d28a735b2687c94698c655cf28@xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <95014c56b8f831a1bea3c56928cbce96@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (DR29llPtChA0l0ws78st6M9mMAFQppO+)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/0BD-RcvRFAelgfzjJ0E6mfkPdHw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 00:45:39 -0700
Cc: mcr@sandelman.ca, roll-chairs@ietf.org, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building.ad@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@ietf.org, yvonneanne.pignolet@gmail.com, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building.shepherd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 07:45:08 -0000

Hi Stephen,

A new draft has been submitted

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-11

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-11

The following things have been done.
In section 4.1.8 a description of the link-layer security as deployed by 
SEP 2.0 is added.
Sections 7.1 , 7.2 and 7.3 have been adapted to discuss future 
link-layer security alternatives to SEP2.0 deployment.

Looking forward to your reaction,

Peter


>> 
>> I'm sorry to say I don't think we're there yet. I just read the
>> current draft and I think we still have significant issues for
>> this DISCUSS.
>> 
>> - If the way in which we are achieving interoperable security is
>> via layer2-only then I would argue that that has to be more clearly
>> stated up front (for truth-in-advertising reasons) as otherwise
>> people may implement/deploy assuming the opposite.
>> 
>> - I really seriously question the proposition that layer2-only
>> security is sufficient for more complex building requirements.
>> If that is true, then this document needs to say when it is safe
>> and when it is unsafe to use RPL in such networks. (I can accept
>> that layer2-only is ok for simple buildings and homes, at least
>> for the next few years.)